To me this has parallels to Love on The Dole .It is in other words very derivative.Featuring an idealistic politician who starts out as a political firebrand and ends up as a part of the establishment opposed to the people who put him in parliament in the first place.Michael Redgrave was really in the middle of a winning streak when he took on this part.I have to say that few films about British politics have been very exciting and this one is no exception.This film would obviously have rung a rather large bell when released in 1946 as this was the first year of a Labour administration.So one feels that this film is trying to point out the mistakes that had been made by previous Labour administrations,and in particular Ramsey MacDonald upon whom the main character was apparently based.
Add a Review
-
malcolmgsw14 October 2005
-
bkoganbing4 February 2011Ramsay MacDonald was ten years gone when Fame Is The Spur was made in which Michael Redgrave as Hamer Radshaw plays the idealistic young socialist who gradually becomes more conservative. In the end like MacDonald, Redgrave ends up co-opted by the very forces he fought against.
Years after I saw this film I read a biography of John Connally where Lyndon Johnson offered this assessment of his friend and protégé, that Connally was always impressed by those oak paneled boardrooms. So to was MacDonald, impressed by the very trappings of the society he sought to radically change when he started out.
There are several critical differences in Hamer Radshaw to MacDonald as we follow his career up to the beginning of World War II. He's contrasted with Bernard Miles whose character is based on a combination of Arthur Henderson and Ernest Bevin. He's a trade union man like Ernie Bevin, but Bevin was in the second ranks of the Labour Party movement in the early days. The positions of Henderson/Miles and MacDonald/Redgrave are reversed in regard to World War I. MacDonald voted against entering the war, never supported and took a lot of hits because of it. That stand was probably his finest hour. Henderson on the other hand was a member of first the Asquith and later the Lloyd George Coalition government.
Still Miles never forgets where he came from and why he got into politics in the first place.
By all accounts MacDonald and his wife were a happily married couple as Rosamund John and Redgrave are here. They did in fact have children, one of them Malcolm MacDonald had a distinguished career of his own. Here they are childless and Redgrave is shown taking a peerage and justifying it on the grounds that he had no heir to leave it to. Still it's a sharp contrast to the Manchester slum youth from where he started. In real life MacDonald did not go into the Lords and after this film was made future Labour Prime Ministers like Clement Atlee and Harold Wilson did go in the House Of Lords after their ministry was concluded.
The career and policies of Ramsay MacDonald is still a subject of lively debate among historians, but in Hamer Radshaw, Michael Redgrave captures a good deal of the character of MacDonald and why he did a lot of the things he did. Fame Is The Spur is a fine film and a favorite of mine among the work of Michael Redgrave. -
MOscarbradley29 September 2018Before they started sending up British institutions The Boulting Brothers actually took them seriously so that while, in the late fifties they might have been satirising British politics, in 1947 they were looking at politics with a very straight face. "Fame is the Spur" was their screen version of Howard Spring's novel about an ambitious Labour politician who grows increasingly more right-wing as he moves up the political ladder. It begins in the late 19th century and ends somewhere around the middle of the 20th. It's a reasonably powerful film and a somewhat dark one and it's certainly not without the Boultings' customary cynicism.
As the vainglorious Labour MP, Michael Redgrave is superb and he is ably backed up by the likes of Rosamund John as his suffragette wife as well as the great Bernard Miles, Hugh Burden and Marjorie Fielding. Of course, the actual premiss of the picture is a bit far-fetched and today it would be the stuff of soap-opera but you have to consider when it was made and the audience it must have been aimed at and even at its most melodramatic, you can't say the Boultings weren't afraid to take a chance. Not the best thing they ever did but also sadly neglected. -
Howard Spring (1889-1965) was one of a number of British novelists from the early twentieth century who were regarded as literary heavyweights in their own day but who are today largely forgotten; this film is based on one of his novels. It is the biography of a fictitious politician named Hamer Radshaw, born into a working-class Manchester family around 1860. It follows his career first as a Labour party activist, then as an MP and finally a Cabinet minister. Intertwined with his story are the stories of two of his boyhood friends, Arnold Ryerson and Tom Hannaway. Ryerson also becomes involved in Labour politics, but Hannaway, starting off as the proprietor of a small greengrocer's shop, eventually becomes a wealthy businessman and a leading light in the Conservative Party.
Ryerson, who shares his friend's views but lacks his charisma and gift for oratory, can be seen as Radshaw's political conscience. At first it is Ryerson who is the more moderate of the two; during a miners' strike in South Wales Ryerson tries in vain to tone down Radshaw's fiery rhetoric which he believes (with good reason) is likely to incite violence. Later, however, Radshaw abandons his radical principles for more centrist ones, while Ryerson remains true to his original ideals. Radshaw opposes the idea of votes for women, although his wife Ann is a fervent supporter, supports Britain's entry into the First World War, something to which Ryerson is strongly opposed, and in 1931 follows Ramsay MacDonald into the National Government with the Conservatives and Liberals. This last is seen by Ryerson as the ultimate betrayal which finally ends the friendship between the two men. After losing his parliamentary seat in the 1935 election, Radshaw ends up accepting a peerage. The title "Fame is the Spur" is a quotation from Milton's "Lycidas", but Spring may have chosen it to indicate that his hero was spurred on by a desire for fame rather than by genuine idealism.
The conflict between the radical and moderate wings of the Labour Party has been a constant factor in British politics in recent years; think of the breakaway SDP in the eighties or the struggles between "Old" and "New" Labour in the nineties. This film shows that this conflict is nothing new and was going on even in the early twentieth century. Even in his later years Radshaw continues to think of himself as a Socialist rather than a Conservative or Liberal, and he firmly believes that everything he has done has served to further the cause of the common man.
The film is notable for a striking performance from Michael Redgrave, one of Britain's leading stars during this period, as Radshaw. Redgrave, who was 39 at the time the film was made, was required to age from a young man of 20 to an old man in his seventies, and manages to portray both with equal skill. He is also well able to convey Radshaw's charisma and skill as an orator. Spring's novel was said to be based on the career of Ramsey Macdonald, and in the later scenes Redgrave does indeed bear a certain resemblance to that statesman.
Not all the acting performances are as good as Redgrave's. Bernard Miles, for example, seems to have had as much trouble with a Lancashire accent as Hannaway as he did with a Kentish one in "Great Expectations". (Here he sounds more like a Geordie and in "Great Expectations" more like someone from the West Country).
The main problem with the film, however, is that it is too episodic. Some of the episodes, indeed, are well done, particularly the scenes of the by-election and of the riot during the miners' strike, but there are too many gaps in the hero's career for the narrative to flow at all smoothly. For example, the story leaps forward from the 1890s, when we see Radshaw as a young, newly elected MP, to 1912, without any explanation of what has happened in the intervening twenty years. During this period Radshaw appears to have become not only influential but also wealthy, but we are never told how he acquired his wealth. In this era of the overblown blockbuster it might seem strange to complain that a film is too short, but "Fame is the Spur" is one that might have been improved by the insertion of some extra material. This could have been the great British political epic, but falls just short. 6/10
A strange coincidence. In Spring's novel, written in 1940, the hero was named Hamer Shawcross. By the time this film was made in 1947 a real politician named Hartley Shawcross- not a common surname in Britain- had been elected to Parliament, so the film-makers decided to change the name of the central character. In many ways, however, Hartley Shawcross's career paralleled that of his fictitious namesake. His Lancashire constituency was named St Helen's; the fictional constituency in the novel, also in Lancashire, was named St Swithin's. Hartley Shawcross started off as a left-wing Socialist but became disillusioned with left-wing politics, moving steadily to the right, and was nicknamed "Shortly Floorcross" because many expected him to join the Conservatives. In the end he did not do so, but resigned from Parliament in 1958. He later joined the centrist SDP and, like Hamer Shawcross, ended his days as a peer.
A goof. Radshaw is shown as a Labour government minister in 1927. The Labour Party, in fact, was in opposition in this year, during the period of the 1924-1929 Conservative government under Stanley Baldwin. -
Brucey_D22 December 2018A politician from an impoverished background's life is examined, showing the battle fought and compromises made on the way.
This film is very loosely based on the life of Ramsay MacDonald, but there are significant differences too. It examines the conflict between idealism, principles etc and political pragmatism when the nation is in a state of crisis.
When this film was made Britain had just elected its first post-war labour government, arguably the most radical of the twentieth century. Politicians and citizens alike had largely put their differences aside during the war years and the nation as a whole was straining at the leash for change to occur. This film would have struck a chord with anyone who had any interest whatsoever in politics or the future of the nation. The plot of the film follows just one strand with little in the way of plot or character development outside of that. Michael Redgrave would have been about 38 years old when the film was made; nonetheless he manages to play a range of ages/stages from a young political firebrand to an elderly member of the establishment. It is in this respect one of his finest roles.
Today it is difficult to fully appreciate its political relevance so this film is probably best appreciated as something of a period piece, one for fans of Michael Redgrave certainly.
Seven out of ten from me. -
A British drama; A story set in Northern England about a man from a slum in Ancoats, Manchester who rises to political power, abandoning on the way his radical views for more conservative ones. The film's title is a reference to the poet Milton's words about fame in his poem 'Lycidas', meaning all politicians deny they love popularity more than they love the people. And so, in this film, an idealistic champion of the oppressed, a man from the slums rising to cabinet rank, is himself seduced by the trappings of power and finds himself the type of politician he originally despised. Michael Redgrave gives a grand performance, and embodies the gradual shedding of heartfelt beliefs as vanity replaces commitment. The film will have appeal to those viewing the period between the 1810 and 1946 as an unjust period of British life, particularly the right of women's suffrage. More will observe that the trappings of fame are likely to make anyone succumb to what Milton also described as "That last infirmity of noble mind." The film plays at a pedestrian pace but the production and direction is first rate.
-
JohnHowardReid26 September 2017A Boulting Brothers' Production. A Two Cities Film. Executive producer: Fillippo Del Giudice. A J. Arthur Rank presentation. Made at Denham Studios, London, England. Western Electric Sound System. (Available on a very good DD Home Entertainment DVD).
Copyright 1947 by General Film Distributors Ltd. U.S. release through Edward L. Kingsley in association with Oxford Films. New York opening at the Little Cine-Met: 7 November 1949. U.K. release through General Film Distributors: 4 November 1947. Australian release through G-B-D/20th Century-Fox: 23 December 1948. 10,413 feet. 116 minutes.
SYNOPSIS: Today's radical is tomorrow's conservative. Hamer Radshaw, a poor boy from the Manchester slums, rises to cabinet rank in the British Labour government. On the way up, he gradually abandons all his fine principles.
COMMENT: A long but forcefully impressive story in which the highlights of Radshaw's career are powerfully sketched in with vivid background detail and fine performances from a colorful support cast.
Redgrave himself contributes a study that progressing from youth to old age is nothing less than a major tour-de-force.
Expansively produced with hordes of costumed extras milling around John Howell's rich and attractively varied period sets, atmospheric photography and skillful direction, Fame is a credit to all concerned, both in front of and behind the camera.
OTHER VIEWS: An engrossing political saga, loosely based on the life and career of British Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald. Full of fine set-pieces and engrossing portrayals, not least from Redgrave as the self-deluding, self-serving but nonetheless sympathetic anti-hero. — JHR writing as George Addison. -
Goingbegging10 April 2020A script by Nigel Balchin from a novel by Howard Spring makes for a well-crafted screenplay on the classic theme of a radical politician from the slums, gradually ditching his principles as he moves up in life. As the story ends at the general election of 1935, it is fair to assume that the central character (Radshaw) is loosely based on Ramsay MacDonald. It is a tribute to Michael Redgrave that he took on such an unaccustomed role, and if his Manchester accent doesn't carry conviction, we must remember that the public was still ready to accept the now-derided 'Shepperton cockney' that had been such a familiar staple of their wartime film-diet.
A flashback to the Peterloo massacre of 1819 shows Radshaw's ancestor watching his wife hacked to death by a mounted yeoman, whom he despatches in turn, making off with the splendid sabre that had done the deed. This becomes a treasured family souvenir, and the young Radshaw waves it over his head to provoke a miners' strike that ends in tragedy.
The various episodes are presented rather too much like a history lesson, with dates like '1895' flashing up big on the screen. They cover the launch of the Labour party, the campaign of the suffragettes - one of whom is Radshaw's wife (Rosamund John) having to be force-fed in jail - the Great War, and the hunger marches. Good performances by David Tomlinson as the hereditary Tory MP and Bernard Miles as a swindling greengrocer representing the local business class (from which the Peterloo yeomen had been recruited).
Sure enough, the sabre retains its symbolism to the end. Radshaw had had a new sheath made to fit it, but then never used it until it rusted-up inside. I think we can hear the Jerusalem chorus about sleeping swords, as Radshaw struggles so hard to unsheathe it that it brings on his fatal stroke. -
brogmiller6 November 2020Howard Spring's novel covering the history of the socialist labour movement was published in 1940, three years after the death of Ramsay MacDonald, on whom the leading character is supposedly based. I think it fair to say that although it might have been 'suggested' by MacDonald's life, there are too many dissimilarities and his political career was far more impressive and influential than that of Hamer Shawcross.
In the film adaptation of 1947 Shawcross has been changed to Radshaw so as not to offend an MP with the same surname and is played by Michael Redgrave. This was a busy period for Redgrave with four films released. He was a complex and tortured man but undoubtedly one of the most brilliant and charismatic actors that this or any other country has produced. The part of Hamer is a gift to any actor and would have been of great appeal to Redgrave who was known for his Leftist beliefs. With the notable exception of Andrew Crocker-Harris, this has to be Redgrave's greatest film performance.
The very nature of fim requires compromises and here the novel has been condensed so as to focus on character types who are, shall we say 'representative'. Hamer is a man who has gone from idealistic Marxist campaigner to being very much a part of the Establishment that he originally despised. An excellent Hugh Burden is his childhood friend who cannot forgive Hamer's betrayal of his Socialist principles, whilst Bernard Miles symbolises the self-made man and unashamed capitalist. The Tory faction is depicted by the pleasant but ineffectual Lord Liskeard of David Tomlinson. Hamer's wife, who comes to represent the Suffragette element, is splendidly portrayed by Rosamund John. Her customary 'tweeness' is not apparent here and she has some fine moments.
The overall direction and pacing are exemplary and this remains arguably Mr. Boulting's most satisfying work.
The scenes involving the protesting miners are very powerful and the final scene where the aged Hamer fails to pull his Peterloo sword from its rusty scabbard is unforgettable.
Legendary Austrian cameraman Gunther Krampf has contributed a marvellous combination of Naturalist/Expressionist cinematography whilst the powerful score of John Wooldridge, taken from us at just 48, reveals his musical debt to his teacher Sibelius. The adaptation has the depth and intelligence one has come to expect from author Nigel Balchin.
The title comes appropriately from Milton, not only one of our greatest poets but of a revolutionary nature himself. Fame might be the spur but 'to scorn delights and live laborious days' is something most of us go out of our way to avoid.